In 2012, the state of Florida threatened to force Miami-Dade to repeal its breed-specific law. Florida is one of 20 states that now prohibit laws discriminating against certain breeds but the Miami-Dade law predates the Florida preemption law and was allowed to remain. In a bit of a compromise, Miami decided to put the repeal up to its voters if the state would back off of their forced repeal.

The repeal lost badly in the public -- but that shouldn't have been a huge surprise. The county has spent the last 25 years perpetuating the myth that pit bulls were aggressive and needed to be banned and left advocates just 3 months to put together an educational message that would offset 25 years of bad PR.

Interestingly, the educational messaging appeared to have a solid impact - and included the support of the repeal by the Miami Herald. On election day - 42% of the county's residents voted for a repeal. Unfortunately, nearly 60% of the city's residents voted in absentee or early voting -- and of those early ballots (which were mailed in before the bulk of the educational campaign had a chance to take hold), only 31% of early voters voted for the repeal.

So the good news was, that the educational efforts had a major impact on how people perceived pit bulls -- an effort that has continued for the past 4 years. Public perception is indeed changing....and rapidly.

But maybe the most important part of the need for Miami-Dade to repeal its breed ban is because the courts have ruled that the city can't enforce it.

In 20120, the Circuit Court in Miami Dade ruled in the case of Cardelle v. Miami Dade Code Enforcement that the way the county was enforcing the law violated due process. One of the key findings in the case was that the county defined a pit bull based on appearance and this is "subjective criteria and there is little or no peer review" It also noted that Animal Control Officers could not be assumed experts in breed identification.

Officer Casadevall freely admited that he merely performs the inspections and does nothing to gather data, perform quality control and validate existing data. He offered nothing in the way of error checking and peer reviews of his work...there are no procedures in place to verify his findings and validate his previous opinions as to whether he correctly identified pit bulls, the mere quantity of his inspections does not render his opinion reliable." (Emphasis mine)

The first meeting to discuss the repeal is this coming WEDNESDAY - October 5th at 9:30 am. The group Miami Coalition Against Breed-Specific Legislation has asked for experts around the country to write their commissioners in support of this repeal. Here is the contact information for the Commissioners:

District 1: Barbara Jordan - District1@miamidade.gov

District 2: Jean Monestime - District2@miamidade.gov

District 3: Audrey Edmonson - District3@miamidade.gov

District 4: Sally Heyman - District4@miamidade.gov

District 5: Bruno Bareiro - District5@miamidade.gov (M.r Barreiro is the sponsor for this initiative so be sure to thank him).

August 15, 2012

Yesterday, voters in Miami-Dade County went to the polls to determine whether or not they would keep the county's 23 year old ban on pit bulls.

And overwhelmingly, voters voted to keep the ban with 63.2% voting to keep the ban, and 36.8% voting for a repeal.

The results are not terribly surprising.

For more than two decades, citizens in Miami have been told by their county government that pit bulls were inherently dangerous. They're, not, but that's what people have been told by way of the 23 year old law.

The ban has also prevented most in the city from adopting pit bulls, meaning there are fewer advocates in Miami than in other places, and, fewer opportunities for common citizens to meet pit bulls and thus realize they are not the deamons often portrayed by the media.

Meanwhile, early polling showed that this was a major up-hill battle for advocates, and several larger national animal welfare groups opted NOT to pay for advertising to help push the ballot initiative because they felt the money would be better spent on the next round of lobbying.

This left advocates in Miami about 3 months, and minimal cash on hand, to re-educate an entire population about pit bulls and ended up coming up way short.

It would be pretty easy to get down about the vote. It was a loss -- and a win would have sent huge waives across the nation and would have ended the breed ban in one of the most high profile areas left in this country.

Of those who voted early (again, less impacted by the educational efforts), 36% voted to repeal the ban.

Of those who went to the polls, a full 41% voted to repeal the ban.

In other words, when people are provided educational information about the ordinance, about pit bulls and realize there is no professional support for breed bans, they become more likely to vote in favor of the dogs.

This is some positive news (and also not terribly surprising).

As we continue to educate people about the dogs, we'll continue to make progress in this regard. And people seem to be very open to the educational opportunity and it can, and does, impact public perception.

This is all why the support for breed bans is diminishing in favor of more effective, enforceable and common-sensical laws targeting dangerous dogs based on their behavior, not their looks.

So it's a tough loss -- but one that I think gives us a good measure of the work to be done. The groups in Miami plan to continue fighting through the traditional measures of working through the city council and the state legislature and hopefully more progress will be made in the not-too-distant future.

Miami-Dade has a 23 year old ban on pit bull type dogs. It has been the subject of several legal challenges, including one in which the law violated due process due to the arbitrary nature of enforcement and nearly repealed by the state legislature earlier this spring.

In order to stop the state repeal, the city opted to put the subject up for a vote in a city-wide election -- which will be held next Tuesday, August 14. County Commissioner Sally Heyman noted that the ban was "an emotional respnse to a travesty in 1989...Now it's time for us to make an intelligent decision."

I don't know if this is the first vote of its kind, but I'm not aware of any other situation where a breed ban has come up for a public vote. It's a tough, up-road battle for the advocates in this situation as most Miami residents haven't seen a law abiding Pit Bull owner in 23 years -- and there are fewer pit bull enthusiasts there than in other places where they aren't banned. However, an August vote will be fairly light at the polls, which could allow for pit bull advocates to be very influential. On the flip side, August elections generally draw older voters who will likely be opposed to the repeal.

The people opposing the repeal are up their normal fear tactics -- raising fears that if the law is repealed pit bulls are going to be 'running loose all over the place' -- as if Miami's leash law will be repealed also.

Yesterday, the American Bar Association passed Resolution 100 that urges legal professionals to pass breed-neutral dangerous dog laws that focus on behavior of dogs, not their looks. This resolution continues the trend of there being no professional support for breed-specific laws. Congrats to the folks at the ABA.

It looks like the Maryland General Assembly is going to have a special session in which they will discuss making legal changes that will over-ride a very controversial court ruling this spring. This would be a great step in overturning the controvsial and ill-advised court ruling. This would be great to not have to wait until the regular session for this to be inevitably overturned.

April 13, 2012

Earlier this week, Miami-Dad Commissioners voted 3-1 to put the county's breed ban up for a county-wide vote. The county has had a breed ban on 'pit bulls' for 23 years. Pressure on the county to repeal the ordinance has been mounting and was nearly overturned by the state legislature earlier this year. Miami-Dade is the only area of Florida with a breed ban as state law prohibits such legislation, but Miami was grandfathered in because their law preceeded the passing of the state-wide law.

The law will go before the voters on August 14.

While I would have loved for the state legislature to overturn Miami's law - -the voter initiative will be interesting to watch. I've been following this closely for the last 6-7 years, and I can't recall a city every having a vote on whether or not to have a ban on breeds. I think the outcome of the vote could have an interesting impact nationally.

While I won't begin to guess on whether or not I think the repeal will pass, I think there will be a lot of interesting dynamics.

1) I have long contended that I think public opinion about pit bulls is changing and that most people don't believe bans are a good idea. I think we may see this in the election as there will be a lot of passionate people pushing for a repeal of the law.

2) While there will certainly be a lot of people who wish to keep the law, most people will generally be apathetic. I don't expect strong opposition to the law -- and certainly not organized opposition that can match the strength/organization of the people pushing for the repeal. I also expect that there will be some national organizations that get involved, along with high-profile Jamie Burhle, that will help get a lot of positive support for the repeal.

3) Voeter turnout in August elections is notoriously pretty poor. The people who vote are either those who are passionate about an issue (which will help with the repeal) or the elderly who usually come out to vote (many of these people will likely be opposed to the repeal).

4) It may be hard to convince people that pit bulls are not bad dogs when most have not had the opportunity to meet a legally owned pit bull in more than 2 decades.

5) It's also important to note that the biggest opposition to th repeal is likely from the city leaders - -the city itself cannot legally wage a campaign opposing the repeal.

It will be interesting if advocates for the repeal can motivate people who generally support their cause to go to the polls to overturn the law. It would be an amazing feat after such a long time. I fully expct a lot of people to be watching this...and best of luck to our friends in the Miami are who I know will be working hard on this repeal.

March 03, 2012

Advocates for a repeal of Miami-Dade's 23 year old breed ban were dealt several blows this week. Earlier this week, Senate Bill 1322 was halted in committee. After flying through the Government Oversight Committee by a vote of 9-2, and the Community Affairs Committee 7-0, the law got held up by the Budget Committee by a vote of 4-2. One. Stinkin. Vote. This wasn't the end though of the effort to pass a law that would end Miami-Dade's ban by elminating the grandfather clause they have that allows them to have a breed ban, even though every other city in Florida is prohibited from having such a policy.

But yesterday, HB 997, the House Companion bill, which passed in all three committees by overwhelming margins (17-0 in the State Affairs Committee, 13-1 in the Community and MIlitary Affairs Committee and 14-0 in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee), was postponed from its second reading in the full chamber of the House. This WAS RESCEDULED for next week, but time is running low for the bill as session ends next Friday.

Before I tell you how you can help, I'm going to tell you why it is extremely important for the Miami -Dade's law to be repealed - -and why state lawmakers should force the city's hand in doing so.

Miami-Dade's ban was enacted in 1989 following a couple of high-profile dog attacks in the city -- in what was an obvious act of Panic Policy Making. When reading through their ordinance, it is obvious the amount of mis-information they used in crafting their policy.

The first 5 statements are "whereas" statements -- that give the rationale for why they felt the need to pass the ordinance. The first two clearly articulate the panic policy-making angle.

The third "wheras" statement says "whereas pit bull breeds were developed for the purpose of fighting dogs and other animals" becomes the start of misinformation. While there are a lot of different 'breed histories' that float around out there, the simple one from the UKC is probably as good as any in noting that the dogs were purposely bred for gameness and strength -- and were commonly used for hunting, driving lifestock and as family companions. So, not dog fighting at all, and not "fighting" other animals. Hunting yes. And it should be noted that about 2/3 of all breeds of dogs were designed with the purpose of hunting something.

Meanwhile, the fourth "whereas" statement, is where I want to spend the bulk of my time. The statement is broken into four parts -- I'm going to state each (in italics) and then respond to each one in sequence:

"Whereas, to increase its effectiveness as a fighter, certain pit bull traits have been selected and maximized by controlled breeding

This "controlled breeding" thing is a loaded statement, but first all, let's note that only a very small percentage of dogs, of any breed, in this country are bred through controlled breeding programs with one of the breed clubs. Pit bulls are no exception. While there are certainly people who do controlled breeding with all breeds of dogs, with pit bulls, there is every reason to believe that at least as many (or more) are breeding them for their many positive traits vs trying maximize negative ones.

including:

1) a set of powerful jaws with the exceptional ability to grip, lock and tear when the dog bites

The wonderful workings of urban legend. The bite strength meme was tested in 2003 and proven not to be true. While the study isn't perfect in its structure, it does conclude that a pit bull does not have a stronger bite than other breeds of dogs, and is actual proportional to its relative size. The "locking jaw" myth has also been debunked by actual science. As Dr. Lehre Brisbin wrote: "The few studies which have been conducted on the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls shwo that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of "locking mechanism" unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier."

2) a unique insensitivity to pain that causes pit bulls to be exceedingly tenacious in the attack

Again, squelched by science. All dogs feel pain. If you've ever spent any time around pit bulls you'd notice that they're sensitive to pain -- thorns, rocks, cold, wet -- mine are tortured by all of them.

3) Unusually aggressive temperament toward human beings an animals

Again debunked by actual research. A fairly recent study, done in 2009, actually measured various types of aggression of different breeds of dogs toward humans and other dogs. Of the 33 breeds measured in the study, "pit bulls' were actually among the bottom 4 breeds in owner directed aggression and below average on stranger-directed aggression. In aggression toward other dogs, both known dogs and unknown dogs, "pit bulls' were above average, but not the highest in either category and statistically on par with many different breeds commonly thought of as friendly.

4) And an extraordinary directness in their method of attack that does not include the common warning signs such as barking or growling displayed by other breeds

The "fact" behind this statement appears to be based on a statement from Randall Lockwood back in 1987 - -a statement that he has since recinded. All dogs show similar warning signs before biting/or attacking, people just have to be aware of dog body language.

So, while the law was an act of panic policy making, and the rationale for it contradicts science and reality, there is an even bigger factor here: is it effective?

Back in 2008, the Miami Herald ran a report comparing the total number of dog bites in Miami-Dade vs neighboring Broward County. In 2007, Miami tallied 992 dog bites. In the same year, Broward county, 616. So inthe same year, even while controlling or the differences in population betweent the two counties, Miami Dade had significantly more dog bites than their neighborhing county. While "pit bull" numbers were lower in the Miami Dade report (because they had been banned for 20 years at that point), "terriers", "boxers", "mixed breeds", Labrador Retrievers, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and American Bulldogs were either nonexistent in Broward's tally or had nearly double the number of recorded bites.

So public safety is not better in Miami Dade with their ban than their neighboring county without a ban.

Meanwhile, a year ago, a Miami Circuit Court judge ruled that the city's law violated due process -- because of the subjective nature of determining which dogs were "pit bulls", and thus banned under the law, and also the biases of the officers involved.

So the law was written as a form of panic policy-making, for illogical and incorrect reasons that are actually disproven by actual science, that hasn't been successful in making Miami-Dade residents safer and violates the due process of the citizens of Miami Dade.

THIS is why the state legislature needs to change the law.

So how can you help?

No matter where you live, go sign this petition. Show support to legislators for pulling the repeal out of committee and hearing it, and voting to pass it this week.

If you are a Florida Resident, Best Friends has set up an excellent form to help you send a letter to your state Representative or Senator. Go Here, fill it out, personalize it, and send. If you have a personal relationship with one of your representatives, call them, meet with them, talk to them, and explain to them the importance of repealing the Miami-Dade's breed ban.

On Thursday, Ontario Bill 16 passed its second reading in the Ontario Legislature by a vote of 51-26. There is still a lot of work to do on this bill, but the next steps are for it to get a public hearing in committee (in 2005, when the BSL was passed, public commentary was overwhelmingly opposed to the breed-specific language). The committee will then debate the bill, and it would then move forward to a 3rd and final reading in the legislature. This bill has support from all three political parties in the legislature --- and continues to have strong (67%) support of the entire legislature -- so this is a great step in the right direction. More info (and images from the day) here.

Meanwhile, in Florida, HB 997, a bill that would remove Miami-Dade's beed ban, passed it's 3rd committe UNANIMOUSLY by a vote of 17-0 (4 missed). The bill has now passed through three house committees with overwhelming support -- 13-1 in Community and Military Affairs and 14-0 in Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The companion bill in the Senate, SB 1322, has passed it's two committees as well: Government Oversight and Accountability committee 9-2 and Coummunity Affairs Committee 7-0. SB 1322 will be heard in the Budget Subcommittee on Tuesday, 2/28. After that, both bills would be voted on by the entire House and Senate. Still, a ways to go, but there has been a LOT of support for these bills thus far.

Both of these are really fantastic news for the two major BSL repeal initiatives as momentum continues in repealing unjust breed-specific laws across the continent. I'll continue to keep people posted as these bills (and others) move forward.

Today, HB 997 (the House version of the bill) was recommended for passaged by the Community and Military Affairs Subcommittee by a vote of 13-1 (with 1 missing the vote). Last week, the bill was recommended by the Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee 14-0 (1 absent).

The bill is now slated to be heard in the State Affairs Committee.

Meanwhile, the Senate Companion bill was recomended today by the Government Oversight and Accountability committee by a vote of 9-2. It has previously been recommended by the Community Affairs committee by a vote of 7-0.

This bill will be heard soon in the Budget Committee.

This is obviously great news for the potential repeal of BSL in Miami-Dade. It does sound like there has become some opposition to the bill from the mayor and council Miami-Dade, but otherwise there has been little to no support. There is still a fair amount of work to do here, because even if the bill makes it out of the next two committees it still has to be heard and voted on by both legislatures. However, the optimistic part here (well, beyond the fact that it is getting passed), is that it is winning by such overwhelming margins. That's a good sign.

You can follow the bills here -- and Stop BSL has been doing an amazing job providing up-to-date info and contact information as well.

February 01, 2012

Yesterday was a good day for the dogs. And for people who care about dogs. And for society as a whole.

There is still work to do. But yesterday was a good day.

Yesterday, the Senate in the state of Ohio passed HB 14 by a vote of 25-7 27-5. The bill would eliminate any reference to 'pit bulls' being designated as "vicious", and would instead focus efforts on definining vicious dogs based on behaviors, not on breeds. The bill would eliminate Ohio's breed discriminatory law.

The law now goes back to the House. The House passed HB 14 by a vote of 69-29 late last year, but now has to re-vote as some friendly amendments were added in the Senate (that made the law better and removed some due-process issues that existed in the House version). If passed by the House, it will got to the Governor for signing. If this happens, 'pit bulls' would be treated like all other dogs under Ohio law, and Ohio would go no longer be the only state in the union with a breed-specific law (while 14 states prohibit such laws).

Meanwhile, in Florida, the state House of Representatives Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee passed HB 997 unanimously (14-0, with one persone not present). HB 997 essentially removes the grandfather clause on Florida's state wide ban on breed-specific laws which would effectively eliminate Miami-Dade's breed ban (which exists in spite of the state-wide law because it was grandfathered in). The law is simple, and takes the prohibition of breed-specific laws and eliminates the grandfather clause.

This bill has a long way to go, but the 14-0 passage out of the Ag Committee is an outstanding start. The bill now must be heard by the Community and Military Affairs Committee and the State Affairs Committee. Both should hear the bill in the next week or two. Stop BSL has been doing OUTSTANDING work with all the details of this bill.

Again, this bill has a long way to go, but this is definitely a step in the right direction and the unanimous support in the committe is a great first step.

These changes over the past couple of days are huge for pit bulls in various parts of the US -- and not just for the dogs, but the owners as well. And what may be more important, that these changes are showing that attitudes toward "pit bulls" are changing and that society is no longer content just killing good, healthy, happy dogs because of how they look.

There is a lot of work to do -- but it's a good day for the dogs. And their owners. And society. Congrats to folks in Ohio, Michigan and Florida (and elsewhere who have helped in changing peoples' minds about these types of dogs). It's been a good day.

January 07, 2011

This isn't exactly a new story. In fact,I started discussing this all the way back in 2009, but there is some more information I want to pass along as there have been several recent cases against Miami-Dade and the constitutionality of how the enforce their 20 year old pit bull ban.

In March, 2010, Circuit Court in Miami-Dade county ruled in the case of Cardelle v Miami-Dade County Code Enforcement that the manner in which Miami-Dade's Breed Ban was enforced was ruled to violate Constitutional rights of due process. You can read the entire case ruling here -- with a hat tip to Dangeerous Dog Law for posting the actual case.

Now, before I dive into the specifics of the case, I want to be clear. The case does not say that Miami-Dade's ban is in violation of the law -- but it does say that how they are enforcing the law is in violation of due process -- and the case potentially sets a precedent that may make enforcement of BSL even more costly for cities around the country.

The ruling found that there were violations in due process in three different areas :

1) Even though the prosecuting officer, officer Casadevell, offered a fairly solid amount of 'expertise" in animal control, the judge ruled that he could not be considered an 'expert' in 'pit bull' identification. According to previous US Supreme Court rulings, a series of criteria must be available before someone can be considered an 'expert', including testing, peer review, potential error rates and general acceptance in a relevant community. However, because there are no error rates, statistics or objective standards for comparison, the court found that the county applies only "subjective criteria and there is little or no peer review."

It was noted that Casadevall, the officer who declared the dog in question to be a 'pit bull', had 15 years of experience and had ID'd roughly 1,000 dogs -- and that that did make him an expert. But the court disagreed.

"Officer Casadevall freely admited that he merely performs the inspections and does nothing to gather data, perform quality control and validate existing data. He offered nothing in the way of error checking and peer reviews of his work...there are no procedures in place to verify his findings and validate his previous opinions as to whether he correctly identified pit bulls, the mere quantity of his inspections does not render his opinion reliable." (Emphasis mine)

The court noted that in other field-work type cases that there is a scientific way to determine an officer's level of expertise. In marajuana cases, a lab test can confirm whether or not an officer was right in his assertion that something is marajuana, and in field sobriety checks, science can verify actual sobriety to determine the accuracy of the tests.

Nothing like this exists in the realm of deterimining whether or not a dog is a 'pit bull'.

2) The second area of violation of due process centers around the hearing officer demonstrating bias toward Officer Casadevall's testimony based on the preconceived belief that officers are credible. I won't talk much about this, but it seems to tie into the above rationale that the officer isn't really an 'expert' in pit bull identification, and thus, his opinion shouldn't be waited above the opinions of others.

3) The third area of due process violation was that the hearing officer apparently made numerous comments that he was inclined to find the dog to be a 'pit bull' based on his fears that the dog would eventually hurt someone. In doing so, the "officer relied on an impermissile factor - fear of future harm." Prior court rulings note that a court cannot rule someone guilty over the fear that they may cause future harm (which is very Minority Report-esque). This one makes me question whether the whole idea of breed bans - banning something based on the fear of future harm -- isn't in question...but that isn't really addressed in this case.

I think the big win here is that it seems very clear from this ruling (which was ruled 4-1 with one dissenting opinion) is that it sets a precedent that an animal control officer, even an experienced one, cannot be instantly given the title of "pit bull identification expert" without any science, proof or peer review behind it because it then allows for too much subjectivity in the way of determining guilt. Overcoming this barrier of "the dog is a pit bull because I say it is" will be extremely costly for most cities to overcome in the future.

Would love to get the thoughts of some of the lawyers in the room (who would be more knowledgable than I am about how to interpret and apply this ruling).

Investigator supervisor Kathy Labrada said it's a challenge to verify what is or is not a service animal because there are no specific rules that are required for certification - -making it even more difficult for the county to enforce its ban.

Pit Bull bans conflicting with the Americans with Disabilities Act's comments on service dogs is not new. Currently, the cities of Denver and Aurora Colorado are both dealing with similar issues in the form of legal suits in those cities.

Meanwhile, Miami-Dade's focus on this problem shows that they completely lost sight of the true end goal -- which was originally, supposedly, public safety. So if public safety is the real issue (and why they supposedly have the ban in the first place), why are they wasting time and taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what to do about their problem of non-aggressive service animals?

The reality is that Miami has completely lost their focus on improving public safety -- and because of their ban, are completely wasting their time and resources dealing with their 'pit bull' ban.

In the past 9 months, the county has responded to more than 700 calls for pit bull investigations. Labrada notes that many of these complaints are completely unfounded because the dogs end up being other breeds other than 'pit bulls'. This is time, and animal control resources getting wasted dealing with non-aggressive dogs in the community that could be used to deal with cruelty cases, stray dogs, and truly aggressive animals -- to the tune of three wasted calls each day.

Even though the community has had a ban for over 20 years, last year the city still impounded more than 700 pit bulls - -killing most of them -- even though if the law had been enforcable the city would have been free of pit bulls years ago -- which doesn't appear to be at all the case. Meanwhile, I still am not sure how the county is enforcing their breed ban at all after last year a judge ruled that their enforcement for the definition of a 'pit bull' was unconstitutionally vague. The judge ruled that the law is "improper and must be invalidated immediately. The ordinance is unconstitutional, implemented inconsistently, selectively and results in capricious and arbitrary results."

Miami continues to focus their efforts on the wrong things...letting the impossibility of enforcing the county's 21 year old breed ban become a major distraction from everything that is really important. Hopefully, eventually, they'll figure it out.